These devices interface with the tissues of SCP-2447 via muscle fibers which function as single-wire electrical connectors2. These fibers possess an elasticity level similar to that of rubber, and often connect directly to input ports located on the modules.

This part makes me think the anomaly itself is the electrical components, but is attached to tissue that can be considered part of the same instance.

Flat out one of the best critter skips I've read in a while.
This nails how to do a monster SCP right.
+1 for a legitimate former Keter fully worthy of the status, contained as Euclid using duct tape.

Edit: more thoughts, after looking at what other people are saying:
One of the strongest parts of this for me is that so much of it is only said indirectly. I personally love thorough testing logs in most cases, but in this case, as SirPudding says below, that one off-hand statement creates more eyebrow raising scenarios than any amount of direct description ever could. Maybe you could get away with logs as a separate supplemental, but if you were to put them in the main article you'd risk breaking what makes it work (for me at least).

Same as above, I'm almost on board with this. I found the ending to be very abrupt. I was expecting a log detailing how the Foundation tweaked these things to transform from creatures that flay villagers to armadillos. I would expect there would be a lot of trial and error, and that would be interesting to watch that evolution.

I'm also not a big fan of the redaction in the article. Each are a dead end which, as opposed to increasing my interest, just leaves me shrugging. I mean, isn't removing someone's skin enough to kill them? Do they need to be [SOMETHING SPOOKY]ed, too? Would the Foundation be squeamish about sharing the details? "They are intelligent and [LACTOSE INTOLERANT]." My point is, they add nothing to the article. I'd drop them.

The idea is fairly good (to say the least), but I don't feel we've seen the full extent of the SCP. How bad can it get as one runs through the various modules? What were their previous forms that caused them to be Keter?

<scratches head>
This is a remarkable… curiosity.
While reading I very much appreciated the highly technical description of something that boils down to Darth Armadillo.

I finished reading the skip with vast frustration: what were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th configurations? Who changed the configurations: the anomaly, or the Foundation? How were they created in the beginning, and by whom? Are they to be considered as a new species? Are they part of Evolution, in the Darwin sense of the word? And why is the picture so damn blurry?????

Okay, says I to myself. Let's read the comments first, before voting.

While I was reading the comments, a few synapses inside my brain went: "not everything is said, SO WHAT? You like skips that don't say much, imply a lot, and let your imagination do the rest!"

There's stuff to like here, but I don't think it's executed flawlessly and could probably use a redraft.

Pros: I like that this is fundamentally a generic monster that kills people but remains interesting and intriguing. I like that we don't get a description of these things in full murder-kill mode, because I think that would probably drag the article too far into the light and destroy the curiosity on which it succeeds.

I like that they are being duct-taped into obedient cyberdillos. It's charming, and at the same time ever-so-slightly menacing.

Finally:

Throughout the winter of 1988, residents of South Portland, Maine begin periodically calling local law enforcement to report sightings of lights and noises emanating from within a forested area.
Two civilian disappearances occur between December of 1988 and January of 1989. Additionally, the homes of two local musicians are broken into, and multiple synthesizers and keyboards are stolen.
The missing persons are found in the woods, stripped of all flesh. The incidents are brought to the Foundation's attention.

This is classic X-Files cold-open material and I love it.

Cons: The first half of the description is really difficult to follow without a grounding in what any of the technical terms mean, and don't explain the basics of the anomaly clearly for quite a while. I worked out what the thing was half-way through the description at which point things fit together, but the first half of the description was a hard slog through jargon that didn't actually have much to do with the meat of the article.

I don't think the jargon should necessarily go - I like that the organism's radical novelty requires a lengthy explanation of how these things actually fit together. But it might do with being pared back, so that actual basics of the object are explained in an easy-to-grasp way. This line:

Adjusting the configuration or settings of these components has proven capable of affecting the organism's appearance, traits, and behaviors.

should be in the first or at most the second paragraph rather than waiting till the middle of the third paragraph, because the majority of the other sentences in the description are secondary to the information that the oscillators change what it is, and the entire second paragraph is essentially elaboration on this sentence.

I think you might have done this to preserve the object's mystery, but there's no need. The mystery is what these things are actually capable of and why they exist, not what they are.

I also found the technical and detailed portion of the description tough to parse. I was still enjoying the buildup, it put me in the mind of a serious rendition of SCP-4357-J but then it just… stops. This article calls it way too soon. There is potential for some outstanding logs here!

Suggestion: Add content to the containment procedures modeled after the collapsed bits in The Old Man but instead of getting more elaborate, they're able to downsize over time.

I hadn't thought of doing to containment procedures that way, but now I'm gonna have to. I'll look into adding some logs, but I have to be careful to not explain away the creepy factor other people are liking.

Also as an aside, are revisions like this after posting the norm? Or am I just the odd man out?

Drawing from my experiences, if the people on Discussion thread give valid critique or mention details that I have overlooked and made sense in context, I am more than willing to edit them accordingly.